Laserfiche WebLink
c. One appeal by Karen Schaffer, Roseville resident,questioning the Community <br /> Development staffs' Goals and Policies used as a basis of their Determination.(Copy <br /> in the July 9 packet) <br /> 2. Traffic studies available for this project are incomplete. <br /> a. Issues were raised at May 21,2012,the City Council meeting regarding the traffic <br /> studies. While the AUAR presented traffic studies using the total volume of daily <br /> trips,the traffic study for the project only cites peak hour trips. (See traffic studies <br /> for the Walmart study included in the May 21,2012 Council packet. The current <br /> AUAR was included in the same packet.) <br /> b. The proposal was sent to MNDOT and their response to the City was that their initial <br /> analysis of the AUAR did not anticipate a traffic generator such as the one being <br /> proposed. Further correspondence,while modifying that position slightly, <br /> maintained that the estimates in the traffic analysis were, in their opinion,too low. <br /> (Letter dated February 24,2012 to Thomas Paschke from Michael Corbett) <br /> c. Although the traffic from this proposed project will permeate and saturate the <br /> entire area, including other shopping areas and residential neighborhoods,the <br /> proposed mitigation to be undertaken is confined to a very small area immediately <br /> surrounding the proposed project. (Presentation by Deb Bloom at May 21,2012, <br /> Council meeting) <br /> 3. The environmental and safety impacts of increased traffic generated by this project have <br /> not been adequately addressed. <br /> a. The impact of this level of traffic in this area will increase the noise level and <br /> adversely affect air quality surrounding the site, both of which directly impact the <br /> quality of life for anyone in the proposed housing to be built nearby. <br /> b. This level of traffic negatively impacts the quality of life of all residential <br /> neighborhoods to the north of this site, including new senior housing. <br /> c. This traffic impact will make the notion of a"non-motorized and pedestrian friendly <br /> area,"consistently listed as a cornerstone of this development, unattainable and is <br /> counter to the goals written for projects in this area. The simple creation of a <br /> sidewalk does not make an area"pedestrian friendly." (See all planning and <br /> visioning documents listed in 5.) <br /> d. Roseville is a senior community with many senior drivers. (Demographics in the <br /> 2010 Census results)This area is close to a smaller shopping area frequented by <br /> seniors. The intersections in the area are listed presently at LOS D and LOS F. (See <br /> current traffic studies in the May 2012 council packet) The problems at these <br /> intersections cannot be corrected by additional turn lanes. In fact,for pedestrians <br /> this"mitigation"simply creates further hazards. <br /> 4. The proposed plat and associated project will have significant detrimental financial and <br /> economic impacts. <br /> a. According to studies by Roseville Police Chief and the Ramsey County Sheriffs <br /> Department (the Ramsey County analysis was in the May 21 council packet),our <br /> police department estimates a need of one to two additional patrol officers at an <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />